Opinion
CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00010 DPM/BD
01-19-2017
MARK STEPHEN LEWIS ADC #163232 PLAINTIFF v. PATRICIA TABB, et al. DEFENDANTS
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
I. Procedure for Filing Objections
This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. You may file written objections to this Recommendation. If you file objections, they must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for your objection. Your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation.
If no objections are filed, Judge Marshall can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact.
II. Discussion
Mark Stephen Lewis, an Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC") inmate, filed this lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #2) He complains that ADC officials insist that he enroll in a General Education Development ("GED") program when he has already has a GED certificate from Arizona and a high school diploma from Nevada. According to Mr. Lewis, Defendants have refused to pay the $15 fee associated with verifying that he has completed these educational requirements. He also notes that he was previously in the United States Navy, which has an educational requirement of at least a GED. And he notes that, while the ADC refuses to pay $15 to verify his GED, it pays far more than $15 for the GED classes and testing that Defendants are requiring him to take.
There is "no constitutional right to educational or vocational opportunities during incarceration." Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 450 (8th Cir. 1992). It follows that the ADC is not required to pay the verification fee for the diplomas that Mr. Lewis previously received. As noted in the papers attached to Mr. Lewis's complaint, Mr. Lewis may be able to verify his previous education by having a friend or family member obtain the diplomas at issue. (#2 at p.10)
In addition, although Mr. Lewis complains that he does not wish to be required to participate in a program that he has already completed, he has not attributed any unconstitutional conduct to the Defendants. He has not alleged that he has, or will, suffer any constitutional injury as a result of either being required to complete another GED course or by removing himself from the program. Without any constitutional violation, Mr. Lewis cannot proceed on his claims.
III. Conclusion
The Court recommends that Mr. Lewis's claims be DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failing to state a constitutional claim.
DATED this 19th day of January, 2017.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE